Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
NPR: the Voices and Views of One Side
National Public Radio.
National Pay or Play Radio.
Spring Pledge Drive, 2012.
Hosts beg and cajole on air hour after hour, day after day for money.
They creatively and with cool music in the background alternately shame and praise listeners to pony up part of the paycheck.
And promise membership cards, mugs, and messenger bags in return.
NPR is your radio station.
Send money; get “unbiased” reporting.
Send money; hear the views “of all sides.”
According to Gabriel Spitzer.
And Melba Lara.
And Scott Simon. Host of Weekend Edition. Saturday.
Simon supported the war in Afghanistan.
Simon: “It seems to me that in confronting the forces that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, American pacifists have no sane alternative now but to support the war. I don’t consider this reprisal or revenge, but self-defense: protecting the world from further attacks by destroying those who would launch them.”
Simon says. Sir, yes, sir.
Simon’s salary: $300,648.
Steve Inskeep. “My job is to bring an unvarnished view of what’s happening around the world every day…”
The tone of Inskeep’s voice changes when he interviews Palestinians, Pakistanis, and Iranians vs. Israelis, Saudi’s, CEOs, and US government officials.
Hostile, disbelieving, aggressive for the former.
Cordial, obsequious, passive for the latter.
Inskeep’s salary: $331,241.
I admit I listen and I don’t pay.
Because NPR doesn’t air the views of all sides.
All things are not considered.
The so-called “experts” NPR interviews are pro-government, pro-war, and promote the ideas of right-wing think tanks. A faction of former national security advisors, defense department officials, ambassadors, ex-pentagon generals, and military commanders.
Inside the DC beltway.
The government to K-street, to think tank, to NPR pipeline.
Those are the opinions and views heard in the vast majority of stories.
I know because after stories air, I google the website the expert represents.
The websites use words like: nonpartisan, principled, independent, strong, pragmatic, quality, benchmarking, innovative, strategic, impact.
Distinguished, deep thinkers thinking about good governance, rule of law, nuclear proliferation, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, 21st century defense, metrics, kinetics, energy security, failed states, nation building, geoeconomics, transparency, emerging markets, saving behavior, managing global order.
Like the Brookings Institution.
An NPR story titled: Technological Innovations Help Dictators See All.
Weekend Edition host Rachel Martin. Sunday. She interviewed an expert.
John Villasenor. Senior Fellow.
Martin asks: “Give us some real-world examples. How could this play out in a country like Syria?”
Villasenor: “Well, in countries like Syria, there’s no reason to expect that governments won’t take advantage of every possible technological tool at their disposal to monitor their citizenry. Smartphones, and the apps that run on smartphones, very often track location in an authoritarian country.”
C’mon Rachel! Syria?
How many Syrians do you think own Smartphones?
How many Americans do you think own Smartphones?
The American surveillance state intercepts and stores 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications every day!
Why not talk about that?
They didn’t talk about that.
An NPR story titled: As Drones Evolve, More Countries Want Their Own.
Talk of the Nation host Neal Conan interviewed an expert.
The Brookings Institution Senior Fellow:
“And so, you know, unfortunately we have a long history of machines essentially engaging in killing, and so I think when people are designing – figuring out how to use drones, we have to keep in mind that, you know, there’s already been a precedent of these things and try to improve upon that.”
You lost me. Precedent? Improve on what?
Villasenor didn’t mention that American drones have killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Conan doesn’t ask.
For experts like Villasenor, civilian deaths are unfortunate but inevitable collateral damage in the war on terror.
I think they’re crimes against humanity.
Drone attacks are remote control terrorism.
That is my opinion.
But I’m no expert.
And NPR doesn’t want to hear my side.
Council on Foreign Relations.
An NPR story titled: Obama sends 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan.
All Things Considered host Michele Norris interviewed an expert.
Max Boot is the “Jeane J. Kirkpatrick” Senior Fellow for
National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Norris: “…based on what you heard tonight, do you think the president went far enough?”
Boot: “I mean, the parts that I really liked and I thought were terrific were when he talked about that we have a vital national interest in Afghanistan. We have to be there to prevent a cancer from, once again, spreading throughout that country.”
The US military counterinsurgency won’t let cancer metastasize in Afghanistan.
But the troops can’t save everyone. Millions of Afghans are at the end stage.
Of the “Great Game.”
There is no morphine to kill the pain.
An article by Max Boot on the recent clashes in Afghanistan over the burning of Qurans.
Title: Afghans Don’t Hate Americans.
The Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow:
“Many Americans seem to be saying that if the Afghan people don’t want us there, why should we stay? That’s dubious logic because we are not in Afghanistan as a favor to the Afghan people. We are there to protect our own self-interest in not having their territory once again become a haven for al-Qaida.”
I think the American people are right.
The US military shouldn’t stay in Afghanistan.
That’s not dubious logic.
It’s smart logic.
I think Afghans hate the troops for occupying their country and killing their people.
I can understand that. I would, too.
I don’t believe Afghans hate all Americans.
Like Max Boot and other Senior Fellows at right-wing think tanks.
Who want to continue the war, occupation, targeted assassinations, sanctions, night raids, kill-capture operations, and drone strikes.
But I’m no expert. Nor are the American people.
And NPR doesn’t want to hear our views.
We didn’t write two books about war like Boot did:
War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today.
The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power.
Check out the search engine for stories at NPR’s website.
Search for the following: American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Center for a New American Security, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal United Services Institute.
A ton of hits.
A ton of expert opinion and analysis of the world.
You’ll be amazed.
Or maybe you won’t.
The voices and views of one side.
I listen, but I won’t pay.
Helen Redmond is an independent journalist. She writes about health care and the international war on drugs. She can be reached at email@example.com